Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 2, 2012 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT

3:30 pm
that is exceptionally rude. is there an officer outside? >> that is 11. >> if you could stay and if there are people who are making recurrence during our attempts to conduct these proceedings, if you could instruct them to leave, i would appreciate that. are the commissioners in agreement that we do not need beverly upton? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> do we not need elizabeth?
3:31 pm
>> yes. >> what about chief still -- still? >> i am in agreement. >> as an expert. >> it sounds like we will hear about running the jail system here. i do not think we need her. chairperson hur: do we need nancy lemmon with respect to domestic violence? >> i would like to hear from her. >> so would i.. >> i would as well.
3:32 pm
i would like to hear from effort number one or two for the reasons are shielded by commissioner city. >> i agree. one or two, not both, >> i agree with that as well. among the ted -- the two. ms. kaiser, if we were to exclude one or teo, do you have a preference? >> arlette to be able to -- i would like to hear from a witness to give you -- opinions based on solid expertise and experience. i would like to how well as her
3:33 pm
office " -- i do not know which one will be better qualified to do that. >> i would find that acceptable. to let the city to use. chairperson hur: we should have an exclusion or timeline but i find that exceptional as well. ok. we have the sheriff's list of experts. >> there is two additional experts under tab 14.
3:34 pm
chairperson hur: thank you. >> if i may go ahead and offer, i am happy to reserve the potential of a barbaro war of it -- witness. he can speak to that but until those arguments are made, i am happy to put him aside. >> mr. kopp? >> which witness would that be? >> i do not have a report -- i do not have the testimony.
3:35 pm
i will not -- will let mr. rattner address this. >> we object to mr. sinclair's testify in any fashion. he made public statements that were very harshly critical of sheriff mirkarimi cyrus to -- as to the underlying issues. on that basis, we will expect that he not be included as an expert or otherwise. >> do you agree that your have to be offering affirmative expert testimony on the subjects listed?
3:36 pm
>> we are concerned about his own self description as fully rehabilitated, accepting accountability, coming to you from the perspective of restorative justice, having already traversed that process. we do not agree with those statements. we have heard them again in the media. we do enough will confront than they -- confront them. i am not comfortable saying the issue will not come up. it may not come up with an affirmative expert on their side. we might need extra test run to rebut some of the testimony based on what he says his media. >> may i make one point. normally experts come to cases
3:37 pm
with backgrounds. bijan a promise to be neutral observers. some people knew i am in no -- it is not usually, in civil practice, the normal practice is to determineif th if they have additional. that is standard practice. it may not be with the commission decides to do here. chairperson hur: comments from the commissioners with respect to mr. sinclair. mr. sinclair was offered as a
3:38 pm
subject matter expert. that was based on say the experts disclosures of the mayor. >> no. i believe the -- the only reason is supplemental is not in response to anything we saw from the sheriff. it had to do with the short term and we were working on. it's difficult in reaching wises and making sure that the there would speak to the issues. it is an administrative difficulty. >> i do not see the relevance of mr. sinclair and up -- i do not see how that will make as help
3:39 pm
our decision. >> i would agree. the fact is that happened and how it relates to his job and duties and in and around -- not to determine his conduct post- sentencing. i do not think you need to hear from this expert. >> would you like to speak to sheriff smith? >> we believe she is -- will be able to speak to the duties and relationships of eight bay area's sheriff. it is a different focus. these go to the duties that the
3:40 pm
sheriff. i do not believe any of these are duplicative. to the extent you would like us to narrow down list, we will combine and the masai can say is perhaps we should put her on analyst with water to enter to be one or two or three and we could talk to that group of witnesses and see who can best represent the positions we would like to offer. >> i have no objection to that. >> we object to sheriff lori smith. at this point, the commission
3:41 pm
has approved receiving testimony in the formal declarations from mr. henderson -- chairperson hur: we're talking about the expert witnesses. the mayor may call one of the three witnesses. >> and henderson is a principal in twitter's till we have invited a declaration. i'm not sure where presented herein -- i do not think that has been stated. what facts he would testify to. with all due respect, you opposed including a declaration from mr. henderson. >> i did.
3:42 pm
the commission decided we would get a declaration. we went through that. we had not made an alternate determination as to whether his testimony will come in but we will get a declaration from him. you have an objection to the sheriff's experts and the procedure of choosing from one, too, or three. >> we object to any of them, to choosing even one. they're not relevant as commissioner renne said. on that basis and the basis of relevance, we would continue to maintain an objection to any of those witnesses. chairperson hur: you have a standard -- an expert on the standard of care. you do not think you need either of them?
3:43 pm
>> respectfully, commissioner, we're prepared to tell you what mr. hennessy's opinion would be. >> it sounds like it would relate to the standard of care. >> it would relate to the share of's department -- sheriff's department. everyone is in agreement. if you have one, the mayor is entitled to have one. whether there are specific objections, we can do with that once we know what the opinions are. i for one think we will need a subject matter standard of care expert. the mayor and you should be
3:44 pm
entitled to have one. does the mayor have any objection to mr. hennessy? in light of what we just discussed? >> we would ask that all experts opinions be disclosed by declaration the same way as other witnesses so we can fully prepare for each others' cases. just to clarify, it is not that i have no ideai am not coming wf opinions to disclose. i have some idea what they will say, based on a preliminary conversations. on this short time line, we are not able to do this sort of expert disclosure you would see in civil litigation.
3:45 pm
>> mr. wagner asked specifically to speak to chief smith. do i have that title right? sheriff smith. the chair has just indicated the view, which i share, about each side having a standard of care expert. if you have a specific objection to sheriff smith, as opposed to a general one, say that now. i do not want the mayor to choose among three and then learn later there were reasons she would not be appropriate that might not apply to the other two. >> thank you. to make sure i have these clear, we are talking about
3:46 pm
chief landsdowne and sheriff smith. >> that was your request with you stood up. >> i stood up to make an objection to share of smith, a general objection. as to some -- as to specifically, there is nothing the city attorney has said which goes to which charge specifically. i make that point, which i hope we will come back to, since there are no specific counts in the charges. there is per representative after paragraph. there are no specific charges. we do not know what specifically, sure of smith, what her testimony will cover. -- sheriff smith, what her testimony would cover. >> would that apply equally to
3:47 pm
others? >> yes, it would. >> the you have specific objections to share of smith, at -- to share of the smith, distinct from your broad -- to sheriff smith, distinct from your broad objection. >> i do not. >> thank you. >> the next item we need to address is timing. it appears we have rooms available for testimony on june 19, from 6:00 p.m. on, and june 29, from 8 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. i do not know if we have any additional information about other available dates. >> friday, july 20, from 1230
3:48 pm
too 630 -- from 12:30 to 6:30. were you going to go over the witness list? >> the sheriff said there were only two witnesses he would want in his defense. can the parties -- are those states -- are you available? >> he seems troubled. i have the same question as mr. st. croix. >> mr. kopp, am i correct that your witness list is defensive, and we have addressed all the witnesses you think need to be called? >> i do not think we need to go to our witness list at this time.
3:49 pm
>> i just want to clarify, because of how to prepare for the hearing, whether the sheriff is essentially dropping all of their back witnesses. i do not understand it right now. >> they have said they are going to craft a declaration of for mr. hennessy, who is also acting as the expert. there was also ms. lopez. >> we hope to offer her testimony live or remotely. we hope to get a declaration from her. >> ms. --
3:50 pm
>> we hope to at least submit a declaration. ideally, we will have her testify live. >> does that answer your question? is there anybody else, mr. kopp, you intend to offer? >> we are not going to foreclose getting declarations from the other witnesses on our list. it is going to depend on the declarations from the mayor. >> my understanding is you are not offering testimony. many of those people were redundant. the decisions we made about people who were excluded are going to apply equally to your list. >> i think we should go over
3:51 pm
them. i did not understand that to be the commission. >> ok. >> do you intend to call art agnos? >> i would request a few minute recess before we go into our witness list. >> ok. we will
3:52 pm
>> we are back in session, if people can please take their seats. mr. wagner, you were going to address the sheriff's witnesses. i am a little surprised. when mr. kopp stood up, he clearly said he only needed two witnesses, the mayor and the sheriff. the other witnesses were there as defensive measures.
3:53 pm
that is the color through which i am reviewing other discussion. >> if i may, let me clarify that i think you misunderstood. the distinction is between live witness testimony and decorations. that is what the comments were referring to. we believe it is our position, in terms of live witness testimony, the only essential witnesses are the sheriff and the mayor. all other testimony could be submitted. that is what he intended to convey. >> please proceed. >> as to the former mayor -- >> we need to hear from the former mayor. >> mayor agnos is expected to
3:54 pm
testify because it would impeach mayor lee's. specifically, he will testify to conversations he had with mayor lee immediately prior to the suspension of the sheriff. >> and this will relate to why the mayor suspended the shares fax -- the sheriff'? >> the testimony will impeach the mayor's credibility. >> meaning there is another reason the sites the stated charges? commissioners, views on testimony from mr. agnos?
3:55 pm
would you like to -- >> my understanding is that he told me early -- mayor lee not to suspend sheriff mirkarimi, and the mayor decided otherwise. i do not see how that is relevant. one of the arguments that has been raised is that this is essentially epochal prosecution. one of the reasons we have identified some any expert witnesses to talk about practice issues and professional standards issues is to defeat that kind of claim, to show that on the merits the conduct can meet that standard. what i am gathering from the relevance is that that is a line the sheriff is going to pursue.
3:56 pm
we do not think that has ever been an appropriate set of arguments. the mayor is not on trial for his decision to suspend the sheriff. >> comments or questions from either party? >> mr. wagner, is that correct, how mr. keith characterized what the former mayor would testify to? >> i believe i have already stated the testimony would impeach the credibility, vis-a- vis the conversations he had with nearly -- with mayor lee. >> what would he say? what is this other reason?
3:57 pm
>> excuse me. mayor agnos told mayor lee to talk to eliana lopez directly, and asked whether he had spoken to any other mayor about his intention to suspend the sheriff. he indicated he had not. at minimum, that is extremely relevant to the suspension of the sheriff, in terms of his motivations, his lack of reviewing any evidence, or even contacting eliana lopez in this case before he suspended the sheriff. i will add as a former mayor we could have called mayor agnos just as the city attorney has called retired sheriff's, as a
3:58 pm
witness of what constitutes misconduct and when a mayor should suspend another official. >> mr. wagner, assuming that the mayor testifies, what you say mayor agnos is going to testify -- there is no need for him to come in and say anything. it does not attack credibility. it just says the same thing. is that right? you told him he did not consult with anybody, and he says yes. nothing the mayor is saying goes to a pre -- goes to impeach credibility. >> without having heard the mayor's case in chief, i can
3:59 pm
state at the outset that every witness that the sheriff would call would be to rebut the case of the mayor, but i think that goes without saying. i think the question here is the relevance of the testimony. i am presuming that mayor lee is not going to take the stand and say he refused to talk to any other mayor about the suspension. >> you could ask him on cross- examination. >> that is correct. >> i do not see that the motivation has any part in what we are about, here. it is for the very reason that the people passed this initiative to give